October 2012 Updates

Hey,

If you've been keeping up to date on what's been going on at Fymantics, 1) thank you, 2) no, seriously, and 3) a lot has been updated and made official. If you need a refresher, because I think I do too, here's what's been going on:

- We are now Fymantic Pictures. After our work under FilmANTic Manny, to the shorter but understated FilmANTics, we merged into one clear word, a merge and twist between the "film antics" run we've been doing lately.

- This change also gave us an opportunity to play with logo-design. This experiment made us self-analyze our priority at Fymantic. Despite our interests in making the dramatic and realistic, we also want to expand to the adventurous and artistic (creating "film antics"). With this outlook in mind, our logo played around with lines, symmetry, and just something astray from the fonts and layouts we're used to seeing. I'm really happy with the turnout.

- Obviously, the new logo has omitted my favorite little addition, the Manny the skeleton sketch. During experiments, Manny honestly did not fit in with our new appearance. While we updated his look as well as ours, it still didn't match. This doesn't mean he's out of the picture completely; he's still a part of Fymantic, a twisted but quirky representation of what our outlook is. He will still appear as a secondary logo when we think is best.

 - Ever since my run-in with Gaming4Respect, I will also be providing gaming footage and videos in collaboration with Gaming4Respect. The admins at G4R have been incredibly supportive of our work and ambitions and more than want us to write and video-edit for them. As an expanding gaming community site, this gives us a huge opportunity to show thousands what we can do.

- Why am I updating you all so late? Easy. College. And work, since I just began a new job at the local theater. This would mean I have far less time to tinker with videos, but surprisingly, I've had numerous opportunities to capture footage of events around me; between birthday parties, school events, or day-to-day little things, there's a lot of experimenting to go. When I'll manage to actually get to editing and uploading, is beyond me. But rest assured...

- We have a lot in store to show you.

In time.

- Ant

The Dynamics of Film-Adaptations

Late this summer, I had the opportunity to write for a local gaming site, Gaming4Respect. One of the editors, Keith DePalma, found some of my writing and immediately asked me to join and write for their site. Though school and a new job were on the horizon, I, of course, signed up. The same night I joined, the admins and I were discussing an IGN article (link below) posted that night about the forthcoming Uncharted film-adaptation, and it got me in a rant. Thus, here is my first article for the site, an analysis on film adaptations and how to do it right (finally uploaded for my Blogspot & MyIGN viewers).
 
Just recently this week, Keith DePalma and I were explaining to Mary Cosgrove the impact of the Uncharted franchise for PlayStation 3. Whatever preferences we gamers pick, there is no denying Uncharted has set a generation-defining benchmark as both an excellence in cinematic story-telling and a craftsmanship in production value. While we talked about this, I pulled up an article uploaded from IGN that same night.

Once again, an Uncharted film-adaptation is put in production hell. Having been in production hell since the acclaim of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, directors, writers, and actors have continued to drop in and out of the adaptation. This is all-and-good, but there was a bigger problem I found when I read this: It is an adaptation of the established Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune from 2007.

The choice of Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune startled me more than these movie articles usually do, and it brought to mind the relationship between gamers and their games; and filmmakers and these games: there isn’t one. The Uncharted franchise, as I mentioned, has already established itself as a cinematic gaming experience. From its character development, plot directions, and overall pacing lends itself as a movie experience the likes of which we compare Spielberg’s Indiana Jones franchise.

The article got me to rant with Keith & Mary about this problem, because it is a problem. Hollywood is planning to copy/paste the story the three of us already know, into a movie we will have already seen and experienced, and give little incentive for the experienced gamer to see what we already know. What I am saying is, do we really want to see a shorter, two-hour version of Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, when we can instead experience it ourselves for well over 8-hours?

Of course, this is not the first time we have had this dance with our beloved video games. Ubisoft has been working towards an Assassin’s Creed adaptation; CBS Films has been in-discussion of a Deus Ex adaptation after last year’s hit, Deus Ex: Human Revolution; and just recently, Paul W.S. Anderson announced his scriptwriting for a Castlevania adaptation. Normally if you are a gaming enthusiast, seeing your favorite video game on the silver screen would be a joy. But time and time again, we have not only been given more immersive games, but also given more mediocre adaptations. Doom, Max Payne, Prince of Persia, Resident Evil, and the always-reliable Uwe Boll are a testament of the disappointment we’ve come to expect from these adaptations, and create an understandable worry of disappointment from film-adaptations.

The key difference between film and game is experience. What Hollywood is missing from our world is that the craft, and really the heart and glory of video games, is the sensation to not see a character-driven narrative, but to virtually experience the narrative. We are not being given 90 minute-to-two hour stories in video games (unless you’re playing COD), we are being given some 10-20 hour experiences with us, the player, driving the main character forward and creating our own fun in this story.

Examples from the PS3 console alone can come from Naughty Dog & the Uncharted franchise (and their upcoming survival-thriller, The Last of Us), Guerilla Games & the Killzone series, Sucker Punch & inFAMOUS, and Santa Monica & God of War saga. For Microsoft, Halo is an obvious choice, as are Fable, Gears of War, and Alan Wake. The possibilities can be endless. So what can be done to balance the forces between filmmakers and game developers? As an aspiring filmmaker, here are a few tips I feel will give some justice to our pride and glory:

1) TELL A DIFFERENT STORY
I have had my own challenges making my parents sit down and watch a few cutscenes from Uncharted. It is people like these that are missing out on a great gaming experience, but there can be a generational gap. While newcomers will enjoy our games more from the movie theater, however, it will leave gamers watching something they have already experienced. For example, many of us already know the story of Ezio Auditore in Assassin’s Creed, and after three games, I am kind of tired of playing more of it (Assassin’s Creed: Revelations basically concluded his quests, all-together).

Instead of ripping from the stories we already know, why not tell a different story? Creating a completely different tale from the same universe would be a new experience for both the movie-goer and the gamer. Assassin’s Creed? Instead of Altair or Ezio, maybe a different Assassin from a different universe and objective. Uncharted? Maybe delve more into the origins of the Nate/Sully characters, or a prelude adventure film before the games?

2) CREATE AN ACCURATE CHARACTER
Max Payne from Rockstar Games was a gruff, worn-out addict with a thirst for revenge and desperation for justice. Max from the movie adaptation, was not. Not only was he not Max Payne, but even as a stand-alone character he was not interesting. As with both films and games, a compelling and fresh character matters just as much as the narrative and atmosphere.

Finding the right actor for the role may be tough, but someone to perform the solid-straight enigma of Master Chief in Halo, the quick & charming Nathan Drake in Uncharted, or heck, the kick-ass-chew-bubblegum attitude of Duke in a Duke Nukem adaptation, would make all the difference in an adaptation.

3) USE THE ORIGINAL TEAM
The character analysis above brings to mind another suggestion. If you are going to make a game-adaptation, who knows how to make it better than the original game developers themselves? After all, much of the mistakes from prior adaptations come from a lack of similarities between the film and game, as well as a lack of input from the gods of the game. For example, the Uncharted adaptation earlier is being written by somebody who is not Amy Henning. The creative directors and concept artists for the game worlds would also be as crucial to giving an authentic adaptation. Or the music? An Assassin’s Creed movie would not be the same without the score of Jesper Kyd, as would a Halo adaptation without Marty O’Donnell.

4) REMEMBER THE FANS
Above all else, remember why this movie is being made. This is not a quick-profit production; this is an art, with an opportunity to be appreciated by the mainstream. Past attempts have failed to give results, instead only distancing gamers from believing, and providing more nails to the coffin of possibilities. Focusing less on the flash and more on the story, character, and understanding of our world will make all the difference in bringing together two of the most immersive and atmospheric industries in entertainment, into one oh-so-sweet adaptation.

- Ant
- edited by Keith DePalma, Gaming4Respect

Copolla, Spielberg, Fincher, Tarantino, Mendes, Welles, Hooper, Capra, and Brooks.

But Copolla. It's always Copolla.

- Ant

On Cronenberg and TDKR

"Anybody who works in the studio system has got 20 studio people sitting on his head at every moment, and they have no respect... a superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, 'Dark Knight Rises is, you know, supreme cinema art,' I don't think they know what the fuck they're talking about."

- David Cronenberg (8/15/12)

Alright. As a person and filmmaker, he's entitled to his opinions, we all are. People are entitled to see whatever they want, and sure people will say Spider-Man 2 wasn't great, or the Dark Knight trilogy was too political, whatever have you, agree to disagree...

But to say that the core audience for superhero films doesn't know what it wants, or don't know what they're talking about and are being childish for watching these movies, is childish in itself. It's not only wrong, it's stupid and disrespectful to people who pay for top-dollar for these movies (or maybe even a R-rated Cronenberg movie) and enjoy them. Or the people that gave $2billion for The Avengers, or went to midnight-screenings for TDKR even after the Colorado tragedy.

To bash at your audience and believe it doesn't know what it's saying or watching, is just shameful and pathetic, Cronenberg.

Enjoy your success with Cosmopolis.

- Ant

On awful movies and what makes them awful at once...

Birdemic: Shock and Terror.
The Room.
Rubber (okay, not awful, but it's a gas).

I don't know why, exactly, but I've been on a "worst movie of all time"-bing. On my list, I got Citizen Kane to finish, Inception to re-watch and figure out, and others like L.A. Confidential to just watch. But they keep getting pushed to the side when I run into stuff like Uwe Boll & Tommy Wiseau.

I can't explain it.

What I can say is that I'm seeing a pattern between the awful movies I mentioned, and while it's not final, I can guarantee it has something to do about the false "image" of American cinema: excessive music, a dramatic presence of advertising, and a convoluted representation of drama or action.

Frank Capra was an immigrant from Italy. He made Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and It's A Wonderful Life. And they are timeless American classics...

Now granted, Hollywood has gone into that direction Wiseau and Boll are attempting to fulfill. But...

I gotta look into this more.

I don't even know why I'm actually trying to look, actually.

- Ant

FILM REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ (2012)

WARNER BROS.

DIRECTED BY: Christopher Nolan

STARRING: Christian Bale, Anna Hathaway

★★★★

It’s not really fair to jump on the paper minutes after seeing a film for the first time. For the most part, a sense of closure and air is necessary to take in what you just saw, to justify an appropriate and conclusive review for the movie. This is definitely something to consider when watching a Nolan film, and it stands in clear black-and-blue with his Batman trilogy.

The first film, Batman Begins, gave us an introduction to what can be possible with superheroes given the right tools and realistic appreciation. The Dark Knight stretched the tools with some of the most impossible villains in comic book history. And now the established finale, The Dark Knight Rises, has us questioning how we pick up where we left off, and how to give justice to these fantastic characters.

Alas, a mistake here and there, but anything can be forgiven with the masterful conclusion Nolan has given to his famed trilogy. Strong performances, fantastic characters, and visual spectacles overcome a sometimes-confusing plot and mildly-satisfying conclusion.

The film begins slowly, with an introduction to Bane, an introduction to Selina Kyle, and… well, a deadbeat from college, let’s call him Bruce Wayne. Set 8 years after the events of Dark Knight, there is no mention of the Joker, but a stark reminder of the hero Harvey Dent was made up to be. Commissioner Gordon is still shaken up with the events between his family and Two-Face and refuses to sacrifice the truth, despite the good Dent has done for Gotham. With Batman declared a wanted criminal, Bruce has put up the cape and simply stood on the sidelines. He walks with a cane, grown out a beard, and has made little contact with the outside world or people. He’s really given up.

This begins to change as a masked being terrorizes not only Gotham, but the reputation of Bruce himself. Soon after revealing an even bigger plot to destroy Gotham, Bruce must return to the mask and become Batman once again, criminal or not. This doesn’t go easily as planned, as Batman is beaten down and broken once more, and the following events become a testament of what it truly means to be a hero.

Though Christian Bale gives another great performance (if not gravelly voice-acting) as Batman, it’s his performance as Bruce Wayne that really shines. Bale gives a clean character arc as a confused and tired old hag, overcoming again and again to return to his proper and former self. While it’s to be expected from his third performance in the role, it’s the newest supporting castmembers that were of most attention, and of most concern for me.

Seeing set photos of Anne Hathaway of Catwoman, her hair let loose while under that tight leather, wasn’t selling it for me at first. After seeing her grand introduction at Wayne Manor, however, it was clear Hathaway was gonna be a looker throughout. She gave a performance with surprising spunk, style, attitude, distaste, and fluidity. Yeah, I still wish her hair was at least in a ponytail or something, but it felt like she knew her stuff as she fought side-by-side with the Bat.

Next to Catwoman is Bane, and like Catwoman, a small, trenchcoat-wearing thug with a mouthmask didn’t sell with me. And in a way, it still didn’t… but there’s no denying the monstrosity of a voice he carries under that mask. However, the real mystery is who’s side is he on. Let’s get this clear: he’s a stone-cold killer. No remorse, no emotion, no identity, only sarcasm and intimidation through a deafening English-accent. Every step he takes continues to baffle whether there truly is a chance for Batman or any of us. However, his actions send a revolutionary vibe that he stands for the working-class; while he throw the wealthy and corrupt into the ugly streets of Gotham, he still allows food and supplies to be sent to the trapped cops and citizens of Gotham. He’s no Joker, but he’s an interesting terror to behold for his demeanor.

John Blake, a young rookie officer for the GCPD, is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who’s really been taking off in Hollywood so far. Seeing him in (500) Days of Summer and 50/50, it was hard to take him seriously with his uniform and Brooklyn accent. However, he grew on me as the (only) cop with a plan, an aware and capable character who’s right to work beside Gordon. Or even Batman, for that matter. In fact, that possibility is stretched during the final moments of the film. How? Well, many comic fans will notice how “John Blake” has a certain ring to it…

While the likes of Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman reprise their roles with exceptional results, Michael Caine is hardly given any room in Rises as Alfred. However, what he gives is much to be commended. While he walked side-by-side with Bruce in the past, Alfred truly comes to care for the weary Bruce, challenging his will to move past the heartbreaks and pain, and be the hero he trusts him to be. It is a painful ordeal he doesn’t want to do to Bruce, but Michael gives flawless emotion to the troubled man who’s made it this far to protect Bruce.

When not focused on the relentless script, Rises is a visual stunner the likes of The Avengers. Just like the climactic battle of the six in Manhattan, the brawl between cops and crooks infront of the symbol of American prosperity is an epic site to behold. The riveting score Hans Zimmer has provided for the trilogy is still the most impactful and powerful in this realm of superheroes, and the tech & costume design is once again rooted to reality, making you forget at times that this is based on a comic book franchise. Nolan returns to his mind-bending visual style with blocky architecture, such as the Batcave and the prison well later in the plot.

With all this said, there are some questions to be had with the relentless script. The first of which is the amount of air we’re aloud to breath. The pacing never stops, which keeps you in the action, but is too much to allow some moment to take everything in and anticipate the next move. The inclusion of other less-than-necessary characters doesn't help, either. While the main cast felt appropriate and just, the rest of the cast, from Selina Kyle's blonde friend, to the coward chief-of-police, to Bruce's business rival, just made for too many characters. Next to this is some elongated exposition, and plotholes that can be forgiven, but given the proper notice, are definitely questionable.

*SPOILER*

For instance, how does Bruce, the world’s greatest detective, not regard the scar on Tate’s back as being that of the League of Shadows? Just as the camera observed the scar during one instance, it was clear she had connections. And with Liam making an appearance as a ghostly Rah’Al Ghul, it was clear she was related to. This leads to a stretched explanation of what happened years ago that led her to Bane, and to harming the person she loved.

And it should be noted (from me) that the very last moment of the film with Bruce & Selina making it through Alfred’s proclaimed dream, was my take of Nolan going for broke. If I had the decision, I would go the Sopranos route and cut after Alfred smiles towards the screen. Since now we know Batman has made it through all this time and basically renders the philosophical tone of self-sacrifice fruitless, there’s no everlasting impact or mystery, only happy closure. As if despite ‘closing’ the door on the trilogy, Nolan actually left it ajar for somebody else. Maybe for Robin? Who knows now.

*SPOILER*

With these quibbles aside, the Nolan brothers have written a powerful threequel (a feat for any filmmaker), one with strong and surprising performances, solid environments and atmosphere, and an excellent score and cinematography. While it’s easier to follow than The Dark Knight, there is still a lot of chaos to soak in. And while the final revelation isn’t a throw-off, it definitely leaves something to be desired. Here’s hoping this really is the final tale for the trilogy. Because after numerous film iterations, Batman has finally been given his just-dues.

★★★★

- Ant

Proposal

Add caption

So what is Proposal? It is about the creative process of the average school student. Books stacked on a TV, papers spread across the floor, and the chaos inside a bedroom, with the emptiness of a whole house. Much like actually making this film late at night, it attempts to strike a chord with what my generation knows about procrastination, creation, and the unexpected.

(the Pukis Cut)

(the Original Cut)

Now, why are there two versions? Well, here's where the story begins. This was my first film class at ASU this semester, and for our first (and only) film project for the semester, Professor Pukis had us make a short silent film. Of all the opportunities and possibilities for us to make collaborate and make something great...

If there’s something I’ve learned from watching silent films like The Artist, it’s that it is a true test of the craft, appropriately stressing an importance in storytelling and characters. I had to tell a story that an audience would enjoy, and a character they wouldn’t get bored with. I can say I probably didn’t give such justice to Proposal, but it was an honest effort for an honest premise.

The premise itself is as true a story as it would seem. I had genuine difficulty brainstorming a project that was not only doable under certain conditions, but something realistic and grounded to truth with students. What more truth is there than students suffering through their busy school-lives? It’s not an easy life, so why not be careless and make stuff up? Carelessness backfires on us sometimes, so why not have everything crash at the last minute because of it? When I presented my proposal (hint) for the class, it mostly agreed with something close to home.

For scriptwriting, I figured that, since this is a silent film, most of our work would involve a consistent visual eye for cinematography. I mapped out an intro storyboard on notebook paper, and prepared for us to make storyboards for our films. Or so I thought. Not according to Pukis, however. Not only did we not touch on storyboards at all this semester, but instead we focused our time on something called an audio/video script. How typing words are better than drawing storyboards, I don’t know, but typing this script was confusing and frustrating with the Mac template, and fruitless since I knew the movie would change over time during filming.

Actual filming was planned to occur during spring break, since there'd be zero distractions from making this, especially at night when everybody's asleep. Problem was, however, me and my predictability; I borrowed my friend's copy of Batman: Arkham City the weekend before, and the rest speaks for itself. So I actually started filming the week after, filming only a few hours at a time before going to bed at my 3am limit. If you see it with a good eye, you'll notice inconsistencies like the bedroom door because of the night-to-night routine, or even the shadow of my arm as my dad left an intro scene.

Night after night, I'd have to arrange my bed props as close to a set image as possible, toss on that white shirt and blue jeans, then get straight to recording with my dad's old tri-pod from his golden years, and my tiny Cybershot camera from Christmas. The A/V script was worthless, so I tossed it out and relied simply on what I pictured in my head, and my own list of what scenes I had left to complete (what to film at night, or computer text I could film at school, etc). We were under a deadline to present our final dailies, so some schoolwork had to be put off until, say, I waited for the bus at the terminal. Finally, it was a wrap, and principle photography was complete. I was tired but ready to show this guy my dailies the next day.

Pukis never checked for dailies.

At least that was over, I stressed. I had time to cool off for a few days, get back on the ball, and then to the next process: editing. Pukis, being the Apple perfectionist he is, insisted, if not assigned us to use iMovie.

Teasing how rebellious I am (every morning, I replaced the Apple mouse with my own USB mouse; and on any other day, I'd have the nerve to whip out my Dell to take down notes directly to my source), he asked me what software I use, implying I use MovieMaker. "No, Vegas." He had a face as if he's never heard of it. Figured as much, since he continued to pester that I use iMovie, seeing as how he's "been in this industry for 30 years, so I know what I'm talking about." What does that have to do with anything? We at least got some hands-on practice with iMovie beforehand, and it did feel slightly familiar to MovieMaker. I had experience the semester before when uploading my high school videos, so I figured it'd be as much a walk in the park.

What ensued would be a new kind of hell the likes of which I was not prepared for.

It should be noted that during this time, for whatever reason, our IT installed a security lock for the MacLab. Only students with a certain JagCard could access it. Disregarding the fact I payed to use this campus in the first place, and disregarding the fact the (fined) card still didn't guarantee the door would open for you. When the Lab was officially open and available, I had one day. One day to edit, burn, and prepare. For 8 hours, I stayed on that seat. No lunchbreak, no risks. Random people passing by, doing their own thing on these computers, in a lab that gets incredibly hot with so many overheating Mac desktops on.

And then there was iMovie. Absolute garbage. No proper timeline, nothing but little icons to give direction. Split? Icon! Transition? Icons! Text? MORE Icons! And with so, so many dailies and files without a proper description (no chance to rename these files, iMovie just takes it and leaves it), the smallest and most unreliable thumbnails made it a frustrating guessing game to edit. Again, with an unusual timeline. Not to mention the sound effects and random music I had to make with GarageBand to avoid copyrights(another icon-fest), and incorporating my mp3 of Beethoven’s 7^th within the required time-frame, and I was dry. Straight-editing for 8 hours, so hungry, so restless... I just wanted this all to end.

Original intro storyboard (rotate right)

Finally, it was burning time. Editing a DVD menu would be less blood-sucking, but the final DVD gave a really low-quality video. 30 years, huh?

Presentations began about two weeks later, my video being one of the lasts over the course of three days. Watching it, I accepted I am not an actor. I couldn't project or enunciate back in high school drama (still can't), and I can't bear the look of myself on the camera. Maybe it's one of those self-esteem things. Overall, the audience noticed the subtle moments of humor I attempted in-between, including my friend Chris Mundy. Pukis randomly chose reviewers for each presentation, and Mundy noted the subtle touches, which made me happy. It also makes me happy that he won the contest. How you turn art into a contest, I don’t know, but his whimsical stop-motion film, A Day With Manatee, won everybody over, including the main competition. The guy cheated in just about every aspect, and Pukis still gave him high marks.

But there is something I learned during this ordeal, and something I think aspiring filmmakers should know for themselves: despite what I made for the class, for iMovie, for this ignoramus, I wasn’t necessarily proud of it. I didn’t enjoy filming it night after night, or editing in one sitting, but every filmmaker should be proud of what work they are doing.

And that’s why I made the Original Cut. After exams were finished (boy, do I wanna tell you about our exam), I uploaded the “Pukis cut”, but went straight to work on a stronger, lengthier, and more personal Proposal. The title sequence I loved so much had to be cut from iMovie to manage time, which like many aspects of this competition, clearly didn’t matter to anybody else or Pukis. The credits felt much friendlier and appropriate than the iMovie credits, with the awesome score of Alexandre Desplat. Adding this with the widescreen cropping, controlled audio levels, and an obvious boost to color and quality, and it definitely felt like this was the project I’ve been wanting to make this whole time. It wasn’t all romantic, though; editing can still be a life-absorbing process, even with the familiarity of Sony Vegas, so there were plenty of extended breaks before going back and getting more complete.

With both projects out of my system, I leave you with this recollection. By default rules, I always picked PCs over Macs, but with the experience I had this semester, I am more than aware and grateful for my choice. iMovie is absolute garbage, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise that it is not. After my experience with the class, with rules, with this ego-maniac, I decided not to take another film class for this coming semester, or maybe even the next. While I’ll give Pukis credit for having me make something official (and give a name to this studio), I’ll also give him credit for being so God-awful at his craft, as a filmmaker and a professor, to push me forward with this ambition.

I love filmmaking. From brainstorming to a premiere, there is nothing like it. Proposal taught me a lot for it, and there is always room for improvement. But whatever experience one has with making a movie, or any other creative craft, it can’t be regarded with love by audiences if it isn’t regarded with love by the artist itself. Whether for a grade or a profit, however good or bad it turns out, none of it matters when the passion and enjoyment isn’t put forward.

That’s what makes art personal.

- Ant

UPDATE: Blogger/YouTube update

Alright, so here's what I did today. I woke up, felt like crap, looked at my channel, felt like crap some more... then I accepted that antgarcia62 simply isn't doing enough. So I decided to go more official with FilmANTic Manny, and create an official YouTube page:

http://www.youtube.com/user/FilmANTicManny

This is where all the action will take place. Not just that, but to kickstart tomorrow morning, all my official videos from antgarcia62 will be moved over to this channel. They'll still be live on antgarcia62, but don't expect much from this channel from now on. It may or may not simply be a sister-channel for my less-formal uploads (no FilmANTic insignia).

You'll also notice a newly updated blog appearance... well, it's not a huge change, just made it appear less cutesy, more appropriate. I was questioning whether to remove my ancient posts prior to this becoming a place of film critiquing and discussion... but I figured it'd not only be alot of work, but I'd be losing a part of myself in the process. Anyway, it's history, ain't it!

Alright, so there's YouTube, the blog, no Twitter (don't think I'm there yet)... "what else is left to update?" And then a Facebook page came to mind:

https://www.facebook.com/FilmANTicMannyPictures

My good friends have already given some support, and you'll find most of my quick and up-to-the-minute updates on here. My MyIGN blog is also getting some notices and posts from around the awesome IGN community, though it is also a question as to whether I should replace like I did with YouTube. Probably not, since I'm still understanding the layout, and I hardly ever use it, anyway. Irony.

I feel like I did alot, but not something I can really say was "a lot" to, well, say my parents coming home. But I feel accomplished. It's far-fetched, but I feel like I'm getting closer to my outreach. As impatient as I am, only time will tell.

Thanks,
- Ant

FILM REVIEW: Battleship (2012)

Missed the first 34 minutes on the way to see 'Battleship', so I figured we missed most of the "important" character/story development, and just head straight to the chaos and stuff.

What ensued were about 100 minutes of awful characters, atrocious acting, obsessive slo-mo, obsessive dubstep, music from the dependable Steve Jablonsky, cliche cinematography, annoying alien sounds, racism towards Asians, stereotypes over the military and nerds, a modern reenactment of Pearl Harbor, one-dimensional heroes & aliens, uninspired references to a board game, and one-liners far more predictable than a BBQ on a 4th of July.

Heck, not even Liam Neeson can save this one!

They got Liam Neeson! And it still failed!

Maybe, just maybe, the USS Missouri intro with the kickass veteran naval crew was a nice touch. But if you want some thing, anything redeemable except just flashy SFX... then you're obviously very intelligent enough to avoid this crap.

☆1/2

- Ant

On 'Apocalypse Now' & F.F.Copolla

After finally watching Apocalypse Now, I've finally taken into consideration Coppola's technique. While I've only seen two of his films (or four, if you include an entire franchise), Coppola creates a solid plot involving an A-to-B main character. However, the real treat to his films is the immense attention to detail throughout the atmosphere, spanning almost 3 hours in film.

In The Godfather, it's about Michael Corleone, innocent turned crooked, but it's also about the detailed analysis on crime families in '40s New York, and the humanity in a aging legend named Vito Corleone.

Here, it's a grizzled narrator, manic turned beast, in a horrifying and confusing Vietnam War, where anything is possible with anyone.

Coppola has this stern obsession with giving authenticity and justice to an atmosphere he wants us to be immersed in. The Godfather turned heads with this, as did Apocalypse, and became not only grand contributions to cinema, but an unbreakable standard that filmmakers can only attempt to achieve. There are no flashes or luls in his movies, only honesty and drama.

I think that's why I relate to his work so much.

- Ant

FILM REVIEW: The Avengers (2012)

‘Marvel’s The Avengers' (2012)

MARVEL STUDIOS

DIRECTED BY: Joss Whedon

STARRING: Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo

The Avengers is about the group of freaks who were awkwardly invited to the ‘cool’ party. Entering the S.H.I.E.L.D Helicarrier, it is clear these freaks have no idea what they’re looking at, or what they’re in for. All they see are people in suits, and questionable looks about them.

What could possibly go wrong?

When talks of an Avengers movie came about after the success of Iron Man, all the possibilities settled in. With so many characters, each given their individual run on the big screen, it was a daunting idea for one movie based on an established mash-up. And with the constant change in directors and writers, the final product could very well play off as mediocre, at best.

This is not The Avengers.

While we know the majority of the characters from movies prior, as well as the battles that lay ahead, Avengers goes deeper into these characters and their interactions with each other, before becoming a team. This is the strength and success of The Avengers. It puts the action and set-pieces second, and puts forward the inner conflicts and nuances a superhero may have when being introduced to another superhero. Despite the fact half these characters are in their own movie, the direction anticipates that it’s no excuse to experiment with what can happen when different heroes attempt to be one. Thankfully, it nails the execution with fluid prowess… and then comes the action and set-pieces. Along with the introduction of aunt Robi… I mean, Agent Hill, each of these superheroes have their own story to tell in Avengers. There’s:

- IRON MAN: the spoiled billionaire and the epitome of the 1%. He has the slick, silver tongue that everybody hears, whether we want to or not. Even when the suit is on, you’ll still see the random Stark Tower standing out in the middle of Midtown Manhattan; he’s still not the person you’ll expect to take up the responsibility of defending the people he can, despite all the potential he possess under the armor.

- CAPTAIN AMERICA: with 70 years below him, Steve Rogers is the old grandfather who doesn’t know what a circuit board is. While he’s the war-veteran who knows how to handle himself in battle with just a shield, he’s too foreign to the now. Despite this, his urgency for responsibility makes him the leader he is, exemplifying this accountability to the irresponsible Iron Man any chance he can.

- HULK: having been under the radars of every agency we know and probably don’t know, Bruce Banner knows what he’s getting into (or what SHIELD want him to). He’s been toyed with before, and he rightfully trusts no one. Attached to this awareness, however, is a soft and more appreciated and sympathetic scientist, helping when he can for the greater good, disregarding the ‘other him’ that can destroy any greater good infront of his face.

- THOR: while he wasn’t given a fair treatment in his who-ha movie with Natalie Portman, Thor is still a godly representation of any Greek mythos you pick. His power from his distant homeworld shant be questioned here, but his relationship with Loki puts him at odds against his brother’s intentions, which greatly benefits the smaller, more homosapien characters.

- BLACK WIDOW: headstrong with the objective, she lets no emotions keep her from her job as a swift acrobatic, instead using them as ploys against her adversaries. Along with her martial arts, her only weapons are basic 9mm Glocks that are, apparently, supposed to defend her against herculean aliens.

- HAWKEYE: aside looking like a modern-suited Legolas with a haircut, Hawkeye isn’t given a proper introduction in the story. Despite being tossed into the mix late in the chaos, he’s as headstrong as Black Widow, and his birds-eye skills are enough to be tested by both Loki and the Avengers.

Forget the threats of war, and the action that imposes these characters. Who are these guys? What business do they have together? How can a group of strange but powerful characters stand a chance against the forces of evil, let alone themselves?

What makes [them] a team?

Hell, even Nick Fury has doubts. The shadowy figures overlooking SHIELD have doubts. But this is the core of what The Avengers is shooting for: despite the chaotic threats, the odds and differences these spectaculars faces, they fight for the greater good, and they have to band together to save themselves, and the people they protect.

For understanding the plot, having to see the past origin movies isn’t necessary to understand what is happening (even though the payoff is worth it): Loki, Thor’s appropriately one-dimensional brother, wants to rule the world with the help of a powerful cube, and the Avengers gotta stop him. This simplicity in plot is worthwhile and welcoming, however, as it gives enough time for the characterization these heroes need, as they gather their differences and become a team.

The characters made by Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, and the likes carry over here with ease and fluidness; the transitions from origin movies to this assembly are clear and flawless, and their interactions with each other seamlessly drive the movie forward, as they begin to become the Avengers. However, while past characters have been given recent opportunities to tell their tales, the biggest nods have to go to Hulk, Captain America, and the tin man:

Hulk has been a tough cookie to comprehend on the big screen. With two less-than-well-received movies, he’s been difficult to give form. However, his complication in execution is rectified with the Hulk we see here. At first, the loss of Edward Norton as Bruce Banner/Hulk left me with a bad taste; thankfully, Mark Ruffalo gives justice to Hulk, not only as a mean, green, wild machine, but as a human being with a conscience (something I noticed was missing in Norton’s take). He’s held off the ‘other him’ for so long, that he’s settled in this curse as potential. Maybe he doesn’t have to be an isolated genius, but somebody that can help people, despite what people in suits ask from him. We see this in India, on board the Helicarrier, and in the battlefield of Manhattan. Perhaps past and failed iterations benefit his performance, but Ruffalo sets the new bar for what is an otherwise… Hulk.

Next to Hulk, the Cap and Iron Man are also given a dynamic relationship. This relationship begins like in a school playground: these two don’t like each other, at all. Cap calls Iron Man irresponsible and not a hero, Iron Man calls Cap another lab rat. It’s set in stone, but watching these two work together, from their first call to action aboard the Helicarrier, to the finale in New York, and change for each other is a thing of poetry, and by the final moments, we see Iron Man rise up to his potential as a true hero.

With the Avengers assembled, the fight against Loki and his army is on. The battle over New York puts the team’s allegiance in each other to the test, and their fluidity is very prevalent throughout. If the Cap is down in a fight without his shield, Iron Man will swoop down to blast off the surrounding creatures. If the Iron Man suit is under chaos from the aliens, Thor will come down and swing his hammer across their ugly faces. And if Thor is overwhelmed, then Hulk can… well, smash. This is a team that needs each other, and this is made cinematically obvious in a very elegant sweep shot that showcases not only these heroes’ superpowers, but their powers put together against the continuous flow of aliens attacking Manhattan. This single shot reminds you of what Avengers is really all about.

It’s a good thing, too, that this chaos looks really amazing onscreen. I’ve never seen Manhattan looked as ugly as The Avengers. Watching taxi cabs being tossed around one-by-one is magnificent, and buildings are simply not given a break as walls and offices are swept across like a knife cutting bread. While the destruction is almost the equivalent of a Cloverfield invasion, it’s not obsessive to the point of a Michael Bay romp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/10/avengers-destruction-cost-nyc-160-billion_n_1507002.html

With so much going on, characters or not, what makes this epic production extraordinary is that it was put together under the direction and screenwriting of one, Joss Whedon. While a team of writers and directors could’ve been a practical and safer route, Whedon single-handedly avoids the formula hero/villains and action, and puts an intimate group of characters together into one cohesive and elegant production. His involvement in The Avengers is the equivalent of Copolla in The Godfather series; there is simply no better person to have put this together. And with cute moments like Tony hacking into a SHIELD jet broadcast with AC/DC, to Cap pointing out a joke he actually understands, to a the subtle after-credit scene (this was gonna happen, eventually), Whedon has a lot of humor and love for these characters, and having written a script that never forgets itself, his involvement is an impeccable match made in comic book heaven.

With what is a one-man army, what is even more extraordinary is what Avengers could have been: an absolute disaster. All the origin films leading up to this moment makes for an abundance of complicated characters, with one character possibly receiving better treatment than the other, and overall making a complicated mess with an underwhelming attention to actually assembling the Avengers. Instead, what we get is a different kind of origin story, a clear and focused representation of superhero teamwork, given careful and loving balance to each from the hours of movies beforehand, and leaving the set-piece destruction as second on the list, but still spectacular in-nature.

If there’s a gripe to be had, it’s Agent Phil. Remember Phil, the guy with a suit, always on the tails of such pre-Avengers events (finding the hammer in New Mexico, watching Tony build a better suit, etc.)? Like Black Widow, his involvement with the initiative is solidified here, yet it’s one that fails to trick me. While he’s only an agent, the Avengers feeding off his involvement in bringing them together is nothing but faint encouragement.

That said, The Avengers is a poetic superhero movie that has something for everyone to enjoy, which is a hard feat to accomplish with a mash-up like this. Whether it’s the serious characterization of the heroes we put our faith in, the magnificent site of Manhattan under absolute chaos by aliens, or the classy moments of fun we saw coming sometime or the other, The Avengers gives justice to just about every Marvel movie made within the past decade, under the leading hands of one filmmaker. This sets a new bar for future Marvel films and filmmakers, and what superhero mash-ups are supposed to be.

Years in the making, years in-question, the Avengers are finally here, and they avenge all doubt.

☆☆☆☆

- Ant

FILM REVIEW: The Grey (2012)

'The Grey' (2012)

LIDDELL ENTERTAINMENT

DIRECTED BY: Joe Carnahan

STARRING: Liam Neeson

“You won’t find much poetry for a jackass as you will here.”

When the final scene of The Grey begins to conclude, and suddenly cuts to the credits, my audience was rowdy. Some two guys behind me were crying foul, “Is that it?!?” and someone infront of me booed directly at the screen from his seat. As I was leaving my seat towards the exit, and even to the lobby, I could still hear people chatting about that final moment; a couple asking “Hey, a Grey-Part 2?”, and somebody next to them chuckling over the thought.

By the time I got there, The Grey was the talk of the lobby. But why? It became clear immediately when I realized I was one of the few people smiling at that good ending: my audience didn’t know how much they cared for these characters.

What makes The Grey such an excellent survival drama is that it understands what ‘survival’ and ‘drama’ truly mean. Joe Carnahan directs something that knows the humanity in peril, the mentality in urgency, and the confusion in loneliness. In situations such as these characters, there is no time for badass one-liners, no time for bravery, no miraculous happy endings… no chance of surviving. The only things you have time for is to gather whatever resources you can, and accept your fate.

The story follows a group of oil workers as they fly back home, only to be involved in what could be one of the most intense plane-crashing sequences you’ll ever see onscreen (centering the intensity on one close frame is definitely the way to go). That group drops to about seven survivors, stranded in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Alaska is a surprisingly small place. It’s roughly four to five times the size of California, but with a population almost three-forth a million, and that’s mostly in one location, far, far away from where this survival group is. Ottoway and his group are looking for people and shelter, but instead they only find snow, trees, and the main antagonist: wolves.

While Liam Neeson is the key actor here, he isn’t the main character; he just happens to be the last character to survive. And that’s the key to how this film is different: you don’t have an upstaging character, instead you have honest and real characters with their own stories and significance. For the sake of the characterizations, I’ll just focus  on my two favorite characters: the obvious hero and the obvious jackass.

Here’s the hero, Ottoway, played by the always-magnificent Liam Neeson. Right from the start, Ottoway had nothing to live for. He has trouble with a woman, of course (but more on that later), has nowhere to go, and nothing exciting waiting for him on this flight. But after this sudden planecrash, he’s suddenly given a test of will. Suddenly, he’s got some thing to live up to: a responsibility, a ‘particular set of skills’ (trololol), to stretch the time these men have to live. If there’s anything he can do, it’s to use his past knowledge for the sake of the last people he’ll ever talk to, and to realize how he’d rather die: instead of having the end of a rifle in his mouth, a fighting chance against the faces of these monstrous animals.

And then there’s the jackass. *Yes, there’s always gotta be a jackass involved, doesn’t it? And he always dies first* While he is a jackass, he’s given a lot of fresh air throughout his escapades with death. One of the more powerful scenes in this film involves this jackass as he confronts his stupidly brave face at Ottoway at a campfire. Ottoway tells him off for being a fool without fear, and jackass tells Ottoway off for being the unclaimed leader of this group… then suddenly a wolf attacks jackass, Ottoway and the ragtag shake it off him, and the jackass… stab after stab after stab, destroys this dead animal with his blunt knife. The ragtag laugh and joke at his irony, while jackass tears apart this animal without budging. After having his moment, jackass backs off and shakes away from the campfire, looking at this dead animal, and his group… and apologizes to Ottoway for being who he is.

You won’t find much poetry for a jackass as you will here.

It’s really graceful that these men joke and laugh at the campfires, during the few 'peaceful' moments here. My audience was laughing along with them throughout, as if we were all a part of this tremendous nightmare. And they should, because this film does that one thing that thrillers often never get right: it gives you something to care about. It gives you a sense that you’ve seen or conversed with these people before, and suddenly they’re on the big screen and fighting for their lives, reacting the way you’d (really) react. They give an overall reason to sympathize and encourage in their journey to survive.

By the time it’s the jackass’ turn, he’s a changed man. He knew he wasn’t going to survive early in the film, but now, he knows he’s not going to survive. His leg is about to give out, and he honestly cannot traverse anymore. Despite Ottoway and the last of them telling him *Don’t give up, we’re gonna make it*, he knows there is not point B. He sits down on a log near the river, and looks over the beautiful Alaskan site.

If there’s a gripe to be had with this otherwise-fantastic drama, it’s its use of flashing back. You rightfully stick with these characters throughout their ordeal, but there are moments where scenes shift between the surviving group trapped in Alaska, and scenes of homelife with family and other events. Ottoway’s father and his poem, the flowing hair of a daughter tickling her father’s face, the recent bar scene early in the film… these moments break the relentless pacing, and feel unnecessary for the few characters they impact.

Also, maybe I was sitting too close to the screen (the effect of looking for a seat in pitch darkness), but the picture quality itself was pretty grainy. For a snowy white setting, there were moments where the color was sometimes too grey (if that’s possible), or too hot and saturated during the campy moments. It doesn’t detract from this amazing experience in any way, but, at least from my viewpoint, it was noticeable on occasions. Maybe my film classes are getting to me.

And then there’s Ottoway’s woman. *Yes, there always gotta to be a woman involved, doesn’t it?* Her flashbacks felt very out-of-place, at first. Her moments didn’t move anything forward, and instead felt like an intrusion… however, this is eventually forgivable when you realize why she’s so important as Ottoway’s woman. No spoilers, but by the end, her intrusions are forgivable, and she’s not your average love interest, anymore. But still, they feel superfluous.

Whatever other survivor thriller you’ve seen, though, toss them out the water. You’re not gonna find cheap thrills or cheap throw-away characters here; instead, you’re given the intense reality of such matters. This isn’t a throw-away survivor thriller; nay, this is what thrillers should strive to achieve. The direction in The Grey knows modern survival thrillers, and how redundant and wasteful they are.

In The Grey, there is no happy ending.

☆☆☆☆
-Ant

The Godfather: Part IV (OFFICIAL TEASER #1)

Here's the link to the official teaser trailer for the just-announced The Godfather: Part IV, coming 2014 in theaters everywhere:

The Godfather: Part IV - Teaser Trailer #1

Cheers.
- Ant


P.S- I made this...

FILM REVIEW: My Week with Marilyn (2011)

‘My Week with Marilyn’ (2011)

THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY

DIRECTED BY: Simon Curtis

STARRING: Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh

The first three paragraphs were textnotes on my iPod as I waited in the theater. Since getting this iPod, I’ve been able to plan my reviews better and figure out what I want to talk about.

Going to the GTC Masters is a treat. When you enter this cheap but wonderful theater, it could be empty like a dessert, or it could be like tonight. After a relentless storm on a Friday afternoon, where else to go than the movies? Okay, I gotta change this when I type this at home. Anyway, what I’m saying is, it’s Friday night, it’s wet and muggy outside, who wants to be outside, but who wants to be inside at home?

And when you enter this theater, or any theater, really, it’s a treat to see people gathering and chatting about life and movies, or buying drinks and popcorn to keep this Augusta-exclusive alive.

I saw The Artist last month, which I’m pooling for Sunday for being just simply an extraordinary trip in time. And now here I am, almost forgetting another Oscar nod, for Best Actress nominee Michelle Williams in this, My Week with Marilyn. Does it feel strange that I’m the only kid here in the face of older couples? For the second time?

I’m a film student, it’s a job.

Anyway, the story begins with a Colin Clark, young, foolish, persistent in entering the British film industry, despite having ignorant parents that think it’s a waste of time. But he doesn’t care; he’d wait the time, he’d pester the film directors, he’d probably suck up to get a shot at mopping floors for filmmaker Laurence Olivier.

He kinda reminds me of me.

As entertaining as it was to watch this character, however, the focus swiftly changes towards the rush, the patience to have Mrs. Marilyn Monroe in Olivier’s upcoming movie, The Prince and the Showgirl. As soon as she arrives to England, we see one helluva’doll. Her perfect smile, that dazzling sun clothes, her witty and colorful replies, oh she’s a sport.

As you progress with Marilyn, however, you notice something. One of her lines explains that something: “People always see Marilyn Monroe. As soon as they realize I'm not her, they run.” You start to see a different kind of Marilyn, two shades: a beautiful, free-spirited, adorably clumsy and childish blonde who we want to watch through the end, because this is why we love and worship her so much; and a confused, fragile enigma with a troubling husband and a troubled past that we personally want to know more about and watch through the end, because (believe it or not) she’s as much a human being as we are.

Both of these shades are given expertly-balanced screentime. And both of these shades are given masterful performances by an incomparable Michelle Williams. It was slightly difficult to take her in as Monroe during the opening song, but by the end, you forget this is just an actress. She steals this role like nobody you could think. One moment, you’re smiling over her voice and beauty as she’s bathing in the tub, the next you’re zoned in she trembles and asks why everybody runs. She transitions between these shades so seamless and naturally, you forget you were hurting inside over her troubles when she’s posing for photographers like an ungodly dame. It’ll take a lot to suspend my disbelief, because no matter what movie I’ll see her in, I’ll always think: Michelle Williams is Marilyn Monroe.

Characters aside, the presentation here is also very endearing. The cinematographer shows an affection for static angles, which reminds me of what was done with The King’s Speech and its use towards a sense of loneliness and position. And not forgetting composer Alexandre Desplat, who exemplifies Marilyn’s shades with a hauntingly beautiful but sometimes upbeat musical score. Williams herself lends her voice in a few of Marilyn’s musical performances, which just adds to how perfect she is for this role.

As much as there was to enjoy, though, there were a few nitpicks. This movie is called My Week with Marilyn, of course, so the attention is definitely going towards Monroe, Clark, and Olivier’s attempt at finishing this movie. However, other supporting characters are less than supportive and more out-of-place. Harry Potter’s Emma Watson is here, but she’s merely tossed in to add some unnecessary or untouched layer to Clark’s love for her or Monroe. Judi Dench and Toby Jones also have roles that are hardly given any life or meaning towards the film.

Also, Clark isn’t as fleshed out as we would’ve wanted. Yes, he’s not the lead by any means, but he narrates the first quarter of the film. His point-of-view towards Monroe could’ve been given equal treatment.

And, of course, that pet peeve of mine… this isn’t American, it’s BBC. I’m not surprised, the British industry isn’t a joke, but I’m still patiently waiting for that non-imported American movie to strike me yet. Coming from BBC and the Weinstein Company, there’s nothing to complain about, what’s here is character.

This review is longer than I would’ve thought. Am I just gaga over William’s performance? Perhaps. Whatever it is, this ‘week with Marilyn’ is both a compliment to those who love her, and an answer to those who question why. Michelle Williams not only steals the lead, the Monroe, the movie, she has you forget this is only a dream until the epilogue text appears and the credits roll.

There are questions as to why other roles were in the movie even exist, but much like Judi Dench’s character says, none of that matters.

Because Marilyn Monroe is the show. And what a show it is.

☆☆☆1/2

- Ant